0 views

Uploaded by kln258

sismo
eurocodigo

- Vibration Chapter01 Intro1
- Seismic Analysis of Structures - III
- Earthquake Resistant Design
- SACS Brochure
- 3 Seismic Analysis of Multi-Degree of Freedom Systems
- SEISMIC OF IRREGULAR BUILDING
- Comparative Study of Seismic Response for Seismic Coefficient and RSM
- ASME_Ch34_p611-628
- The Influence of Soil Characteristics in Seismic Response of Embedded Structures
- Seismic performance of a 3D full-scale high-ductile steel–concrete part2
- Translated Version of MDOC CFE EARTHQUAKE 2008 [Sec 3]
- FEMA 440- SSI Provisions)
- Seismic analysis of a liquid storage tank used in wine industry: a FEM-based approach
- Turnitin Result 4 Project
- Seismic Survey in Bangladesh
- CBS Manual Eng 2009
- 001_Vibration Serviceability of Long-Span Concrete
- Soil structure interaction effects on seismic response of multistory buildings on Raft Foundation.pdf
- Mitigation on Pounding
- ST057Ghodrati

You are on page 1of 23

DOI 10.1007/s10518-010-9199-1

seismic analysis of structures according to European

and US provisions

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract Several procedures for non-linear static and dynamic analysis of structures have

been developed in recent years. This paper discusses those procedures that have been imple-

mented into the latest European and US seismic provisions: non-linear dynamic time-history

analysis; N2 non-linear static method (Eurocode 8); non-linear static procedure NSP (FEMA

356) and improved capacity spectrum method CSM (FEMA 440). The presented methods

differ in respect to accuracy, simplicity, transparency and clarity of theoretical background.

Non-linear static procedures were developed with the aim of overcoming the insufficiency

and limitations of linear methods, whilst at the same time maintaining a relatively simple

application. All procedures incorporate performance-based concepts paying more attention to

damage control. Application of the presented procedures is illustrated by means of an exam-

ple of an eight-storey reinforced concrete frame building. The results obtained by non-linear

dynamic time-history analysis and non-linear static procedures are compared. It is concluded

that these non-linear static procedures are sustainable for application. Additionally, this paper

discusses a recommendation in the Eurocode 8/1 that the capacity curve should be determined

by pushover analysis for values of the control displacement ranging between zero and 150%

of the target displacement. Maximum top displacement of the analyzed structure obtained

by using dynamic method with real time-history records corresponds to 145% of the target

displacement obtained using the non-linear static N2 procedure.

Pushover analysis · N2, NSP and CSM methods

M. Causevic (B)

Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Rijeka, V. C. Emina 5, Rijeka 51000, Croatia

e-mail: mehmed.causevic@gradri.hr

S. Mitrovic

Stabilnost, Rijeka, M. Albaharija 10a, Rijeka 51000, Croatia

e-mail: sasa.mitrovic@stabilnost.hr

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

1 Introduction

In the past few years, new methods of seismic analysis containing performance-based engi-

neering concepts have been more frequently applied in order to pay greater attention to

damage control. For obtaining seismic actions more realistically the displacement-based

approach has proven itself as a much better choice than the traditional force-based approach.

The most precise description of the problem is by far the non-linear dynamic seismic anal-

ysis, made by applying time-history records which, in the long term, represents the correct

development path. Yet, due to its complexity and high standards it goes beyond the frames

of practical application and is appropriate only for the research and analysis of structures of

special significance.

Between the linear methods and non-linear dynamic analysis, a non-linear static approach

based on pushover analysis is being imposed as a link and the most economic solution at the

moment. Thus, in recent years, the N2 method (Fajfar 2000) was implemented in European

regulations (Eurocode 2004; Causevic and Zehentner 2007; Mitrovic and Causevic 2009;

Rozman and Fajfar 2009). The Capacity Spectrum Method CSM and the coefficient method,

that is the NSP (Non-linear Static Procedure), were introduced in US provisions (FEMA

1997, 2000 and 2005).

This paper presents the non-linear static methods which are an integral part of contem-

porary European and US provisions. These methods include the dynamic analysis of an

equivalent SDOF (Single Degree Of Freedom) model. All the methods are presented in this

paper using the example of the reinforced concrete frame structure (Fig. 1) and the obtained

results are compared to the “accurate” results reached by a non-linear time-history analysis.

The analyzed methods differ in simplicity of their application, and transparency and clarity

of theoretical base, as well as the accuracy of the results. In each method, the determination

of the target displacement is based on an explicitly-or implicitly-defined equivalent system

with SDOF.

The pushover analysis is here performed in a way that the structure is subjected to a

monotonously rising lateral load which represents the inertia forces which occur as a result

of ground acceleration. By gradual increase of lateral load, a progressive yielding of structural

elements occurs which results in reduction of stiffness of structure. The pushover analysis

provides a characteristic non-linear curve of force-displacement relation and is most fre-

quently presented as a relation of the total base shear V and the top displacement Dt . This

kind of presentation simultaneously provides data about load-bearing capacity, ductility and

stiffness of the structure.

An important step in implementing the pushover analysis is determination of the appro-

priate distribution of the lateral load. The base assumption of the pushover analysis is the

invariable form of displacement through time, which is reasonably accurate for linear response

of structures vibrating dominantly in the first mode. However, in a non-linear field, the dis-

placement form in reality is changing according to the dynamic characteristics change of the

structure due to stiffness degradation, i.e. the formation of the plastic hinges.

2 Description of the building and the loading and the mathematical model

Application of all non-linear static and dynamic procedures is illustrated here by means of

an example of an eight-storey reinforced concrete frame building. The first two storeys are

5.00 m high and the other 3.10 m (Fig. 1). All the columns have dimensions 60 × 60 cm with

steel reinforcement equal for all cross sections. The beams have dimensions 40 × 60 cm,

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 1 a Building of garage of the Tower Centre, Rijeka, Croatia; b Cross-section and c plan of one segment

of the garage structure

also with steel reinforcement equal for all cross sections (Fig. 2). The plate is 20 cm thick.

The concrete is of C25/30 class and the steel reinforcement is B500. Storey frame masses

for 3.10 m high storeys are 67 t and storey masses for 5.00 m high storeys are 73.8 t which

results in the mass total of 549 t.

The structure was designed according to the European standard (Eurocode 2004) with the

following parameters: ground type B, importance class II (γ I = 1), Type 1 elastic response

spectra (the expected surface-wave magnitude Ms larger than 5.5) and viscous damping

ratio (in percent) ξ = 5%. The analysis will be performed for the reference peak ground

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 3 Elastic acceleration response spectrum with 5% viscous damping ratio for peak ground acceleration

0.3g, ground type B and corresponding design spectrum for behaviour factor 5.85

acceleration ag R = 0.3 g. A behaviour factor of q = 5.85 was taken into account for the

DCH (Ductility Class High) structures.

Since the structure meets the regularity requirements by its plan view and by its height

(Eurocode 2004), the current analysis was made on one plane frame. Due to symmetry only

one direction of seismic action was analyzed and the fundamental period T1 = 1 s for plane

frame is obtained. According to the previously described parameters, the elastic acceleration

response spectrum and the corresponding design spectrum are presented in Fig. 3 which rep-

resents the seismic demand. The fundamental period is in the spectrum range with constant

velocities (TC < T1 < TD ).

The pushover and time-history analyses were performed by using the SeismoStruct pro-

gram (Pinho 2007). Large displacements and rotations and P- effect are taken into account

through the employment of a total co-rotational formulation. Material inelasticity and the

cross-section behaviour are represented through the so-called fibre approach where each fibre

is associated with a uniaxial stress-strain relationship. A typical reinforced concrete section

consists of unconfined concrete fibres, confined concrete fibres and steel fibres. A non-linear

constant confinement concrete model and bilinear steel model with kinematic strain harden-

ing are used. An incremental iterative algorithm with the employment of Newton-Raphson

procedures is used to obtain the solution. The dynamic time-history analysis is computed by

direct integration of the equations of motion with the Newmark scheme.

In order to evaluate the results obtained by non-linear static methods, a time-history dynamic

analysis was conducted first by using a total of 14 time-history records, seven of which were

artificial, and the remaining seven recorded (real). The artificial time-history records were

used for obtaining the mean value of structural responses which corresponds to the spec-

ified seismic demand, while the real records were used for access to response variability.

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 4 a Response spectrum with 5% viscous damping ratio for ag = 0.3g and soil class B (in red), its

90% value (in blue) and the response spectrum for the artificial time-history record no. 1 (in black); b the

corresponding artificial digitalized time-history record no. 1

Processing of artificial and real time-history records was performed by using the SeismoSig-

nal program (Pinho 2007).

Seven artificial time-history records for this example were generated by the program

SIMQKE_GR (SIMulation of earthQuaKE GRound motions—Massachusetts Institute of

Technology) (Gelfi 2007) for peak ground acceleration of 0.3g and soil class B with a 5%

viscous damping ratio. The earthquake duration was set on 20 s. The acceleration value for

zero period was set on S · ag (according to Eurocode 8/1 S is the soil factor, ag is the design

ground acceleration on type A ground). In the zone near the fundamental period there is no

value of elastic spectrum which is calculated from all time-history records, which is less

than 90% of the corresponding value of the elastic spectrum response (Fig. 4). The zone near

the fundamental period is defined (Eurocode 2004) within the limits between 0.2T1 (thus

taking into consideration higher vibration modes) and 2T1 (thus taking into consideration the

structural stiffness degradation due to earthquake and increase of the fundamental period as

a consequence).

The real time-history records were taken from the libraries National Information Ser-

vice for Earthquake Engineering, Berkeley, California and The Canadian Association for

Earthquake Engineering (CAEE) (Naumoski 1988). All the selected time-history records

were registered on the soil class A or B. The ratio of the maximum velocity to maximum

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

acceleration (vmax /amax ) for all the selected records lies within the interval from 83 to 125,

which corresponds to earthquakes of medium intensity (Naumoski et al. 1988). The following

records were selected, Fig. 5a:

• Ulcinj, Montenegro (April 15th, 1979, Hotel Albatros, Ulcinj);

• Mexico City, Mexico (September 19th, 1985, La Villita, Guerrero Array);

• Kocaeli, Turkey (August 17th, 1999, Sakaria);

• San Fernando, California, USA (February 9th 1971, 3838 Lankershim Blvd., L.A.);

• Honshu, close to the east coast, Japan (August 2nd, 1971, Kushiro Central Wharf);

• Kern County, California, USA (July 21st, 1951, Taft Lincoln School Tunnel).

The records were scaled according to Eurocode 8/1. It can be noted that for all selected records

the acceleration value for zero period was set at S · ag and accelerations for the fundamen-

tal period of the structure roughly coincide with the elastic acceleration response spectrum,

Fig. 5a. The mean value of the scaled records represents well the elastic acceleration response

spectrum, Fig. 5b.

Figure 6 presents the results obtained by using artificial records and Fig. 7 shows the

results of using real records.

The mean value of responses obtained by real records corresponds to the mean value

of responses obtained by artificial records. However, a considerably larger number of real

records are required for obtaining the same accuracy.

4 The N2 method

The N2 method combines the pushover method of model with several degrees of freedom

with a spectral analysis of the equivalent system with one degree of freedom, hence the

name. The letter N states that it is a non-linear analysis and the number 2 states that two

mathematical models are applied (Fajfar 2000). The method uses a non-linear spectrum in

the format acceleration–displacement: AD. The format AD enables the simultaneous view

of seismic demand and structural capacity. Intersection of seismic demand and structural

capacity curves represents the required target displacement. The AD format is also used in

the capacity spectrum method (CSM).

The main assumptions in the N2 method are: 1) its application to the structures which

have no significant contribution of higher vibration modes; 2) the predominant mode does

not change when the seismic intensity is changed (due to the formation of plastic hinges).

Listed assumptions apply also to the other methods according to US provisions which are

discussed later in the text.

The acceleration spectrum which represents the seismic demand is plotted in Fig. 3.

In case of the analyzed structure, Fig. 1, the mass matrix is the diagonal 8 × 8 matrix

with diagonal elements equal to the storey masses.

The influence of the proposed three kinds of shape on the overall results for the N2 method

is presented firstly. The assumed shapes are:

= [0.17 0.35 0.46 0.57 0.67 0.78 0.89 1.00]

T

triangular

T = [0.24 0.56 0.69 0.79 0.87 0.93 0.97 1.00] modal

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 5 a Acceleration response spectrum of the selected real earthquakes together with the required response

spectrum and its 90% value; b mean value of all spectra

The distribution of lateral forces is normalized by assigning the roof force the unit value:

PT = [0.15 0.31 0.41 0.51 0.60 0.70 0.89 1.00] triangular

P = [0.26 0.62 0.69 0.79 0.87 0.93 0.97 1.00]

T

modal

Figure 8 presents the capacity curves for this structure for the different shapes (uniform,

triangular, modal).

Figure 9 presents the capacity curve for the assumed triangular shape and its bilinear

idealization. The capacity curve is idealized by elastic-perfectly plastic force-displacement

relation. For determining the yielding limits an engineering judgment is required. If the

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 6 Displacements and storey drifts for structure in Fig. 1 for all seven artificial time-history records (in

blue) and their mean value (in black)

Fig. 7 Displacements and storey drifts for structure in Fig. 1 for all 7 real time-history records and their mean

value (in black)

approach of equal energies is used, the larger adopted yielding limit value means also the

lesser initial stiffness and vice versa. The yielding limit can be adopted at the beginning of

a plastic mechanism occurrence. This generally enables a more conservative estimation of

seismic demand and lesser initial stiffness.

The transformation factor is a well known modal participation factor which controls

the transformation from MDOF to the SDOF model and is defined as

T m1 m i i m∗

= T = = (1)

m m i i2 m i i2

Note that the same transformation factor is valid for both the displacement transformation

and force transformation. As a consequence, the force–displacement relation is the same for

both systems and differs only in scaling factor . Both systems have also the same initial

stiffness. The equivalent mass m ∗ and transformation factor for the triangular form have

the following values:

m ∗ = 331.10 t

= 1.39

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 8 Pushover curve for three different shapes: the uniform (1), the triangular (2) and the modal (3)

Fig. 9 Capacity curve for the assumed triangular shape (the dotted line for the real capacity curve and the

solid line for the elasto-plastic idealization)

For uniform and modal shape the transformation factor amounts to 1.00 and 1.21, respec-

tively.

The elastic period of the idealized elasto-plastic system can be determined as:

∗

m ∗ D ∗y

T = 2π (2)

Fy∗

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

where Fy∗ and D ∗y are the yield strength and displacement, respectively, for equivalent SDOF

system.

From the elasto-plastic capacity curve shown in Fig. 9 the values Fy and D y can be taken.

Knowing constant the corresponding values for SDOF system can be obtained.

Fy

Fy∗ = = 565.86 kN

Dy

D ∗y = = 12.22 cm

The elastic period of equivalent SDOF system has the value:

∗

m ∗ D ∗y

T = 2π = 1.68 s

Fy∗

Finally, the capacity diagram in AD format can be obtained by dividing the forces in the

force–deformation diagram (F*−D*) by the equivalent mass m ∗ :

F∗

Sa = (3)

m∗

The acceleration on the yielding limit has the following value, Fig. 10:

Fy∗

Say = = 0.17g

m∗

The solution can be determined both graphically and analytically (Fig. 10). The section point

of the radial straight line which corresponds to the elastic period T* of the ideal bilinear sys-

tem with elastic demand spectrum determines the acceleration demand Sae required for the

elastic behaviour and the corresponding elastic displacement demand Sde . The acceleration

at the yielding limit also represents the acceleration demand and capacity of the inelastic

system. The reduction factor Rμ is determined as a ratio of accelerations which correspond

to the elastic and the inelastic system:

Sae (T ∗ ) 0.268g

Rμ = = = 1.54 (4)

Say 0.174g

The inelastic displacement demand Sd is identical to the elastic displacement demand Sde

(identical displacement rule) while the demanded ductility μ is identical to the reduction

factor Rμ .

Sd = Sde (T ∗ ) (5)

μ = Rμ = 1.54 (6)

Figure 10 presents the elastic spectrum, the demand spectrum and the capacity diagram in

AD format.

The inelastic demand is represented by the section point of the capacity diagram with the

demand spectrum which corresponds to the required ductility μ, Fig. 10.

The displacement demand of the equivalent SDOF system is transformed back to the target

displacement of the MDOF system. The maximum displacements of stories are represented

by an envelope of results obtained by calculations with different assumed shapes. The target

displacements for ground acceleration of 0.3g have the following values:

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 10 The demand spectrum for ground acceleration 0.3g (soil class B) and capacity spectrum for the garage

structure in Fig. 1b

Dt = 1.39 · 18.8 cm = 26.1 cm triangular

Dt = 1.21 · 20.7 cm = 25.1 cm modal

Under monotonically increasing lateral loads the structure is pushed to its top displace-

ment Dt (pushover analysis), which provides displacements as the global seismic demand

and storey drifts, joint rotations, etc., as the local seismic demands for the whole structure.

Figures 11 and 12 present the storey displacements and the storey drifts for all three assumed

shapes.

The analysis of the structural damage is performed by comparing the seismic demand

with the capacities of corresponding performance levels. Deformation of the structure corre-

sponding to 150% of target displacement and the rotations in the elements for the analyzed

structure are shown on Figs. 13 and 14.

Target displacement δt in the NSP is determined by the coefficient method (FEMA 2000) in

the following way:

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 11 Displacements for three assumed shapes: uniform (in blue), triangular (in red) and modal (in green)

storey drifts (cm)

Fig. 12 Storey drifts for three assumed shapes: uniform (in blue), triangular (in red) and modal (in green)

Te2

δt = C0 C1 C2 C3 Sa g (7)

4π 2

Sa is the value of the acceleration response spectrum for the effective fundamental

period of the structure for the required direction expressed as a part of the gravity

acceleration g.

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 14 Rotations in the elements presented in steps of 0.2%. Rotations are proportional to the intensity of

darkness of the mark. The maximum rotation amounts to 1%

The value of the target displacement, the effective period and the idealization of the push-

over curve are mutually dependable. Therefore an iteration procedure must be conducted

in order to obtain the final solution. The coefficient values C0 , C1 ,… are shown in tables

(FEMA 2005).

The non-linear relation between the total base shear and roof displacement is idealized

with a bilinear relation, according to which the effective stiffness of the structure K e and

the yielding limit force Vy are determined. The effective lateral stiffness of the structure is

presumed to be the secant stiffness, which is determined by the shear force at 60% of the

maximum shear force.

The effective period and the target displacement (Fig. 15) have been calculated for the

triangular lateral force distribution and value of modification factor C0 taken from the table

(FEMA 2005).

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 15 Bilinear idealization of pushover curve for the triangular lateral force distribution shape and C0 = 1.3

Ki 15600

Te = Ti = 1.00s · = 1.68s

Ke 5529

Te2 (1.68s)2 m

δt = C0 C1 C2 C3 Sa g = 1.3 · 1.0 · 1.0 · 1.0 · 0.268 · 9.81 = 24.4 cm

4π 2 4π 2 s2

The bilinear idealization of the pushover curve was performed by equating the surfaces below

the real and the idealized curve in the range between 0 and target displacement δt .

If the exact value of the coefficient C0 = 1i i = 1.39, (1i = 1) is used, the target

displacement has the value 25.4 cm.

Displacements and storey drifts along the structure height obtained using the non-linear

static procedure NSP have the same shape as in the N2 method (Figs. 11, 12) because the

same pushover calculation with the same distribution shapes of lateral load is used.

The main assumption of the capacity spectrum method (FEMA 2005) is that the maximum

non-linear deformations of the system with one degree of freedom can be approximated by

equivalent linear system deformations whose coefficient of the internal viscous damping is

larger than the initial value of non-linear system damping. According to this assumption,

when determining the earthquake demand, the equivalent linear spectrum defined by the

equivalent damping ξeq is used. The idealization of the pushover curve is based on secant

stiffness in a similar way as in the previously described coefficient method. The bilinear

idealization consists of an elastic line with the stiffness k which, after having reached the

yielding limit defined by f y and u y , traverses into the line with stiffness α k (Fig. 16).

The equivalent viscous damping is obtained by equalizing the dissipated energy during one

cycle of vibration of the non-linear system and the equivalent linear system. The equivalent

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 16 Nonlinear system with one degree of freedom, presentation of equivalent viscous damping based on

hysteretic energy dissipation

viscous damping ratio is defined by the equation (Chopra and Goel 1999, 2002):

1 ED

ξeq = (8)

4π E S

where: E D is the energy dissipated in the non-linear system which equals the hysteresis loop

surface (parallelogram in Fig. 16). E S is the energy dissipation of linear system which equals

triangle surface ksec u m /2, whose stiffness is ksec , Fig. 16.

From the expression (8) and Fig. 16 the equivalent viscous damping ratio can be deter-

mined:

2 (μ − 1)(1 − α)

ξeq = (9)

π μ(1 + αμ − α)

where ξ0 is the viscous damping ratio of bilinear system for vibrations in linear range

(u ≤ u y ).

Taking into consideration that the secant stiffness and the equivalent damping ratio depend on

the target displacement, the iteration procedure in determining the maximum displacement is

required. In ATC 40 three iteration procedures are described, two of which are analytical and

one graphical. Chopra and Goel (1999, 2002) have shown that the procedures do not always

converge and more than one solution is possible when real spectra are used. It has also been

shown that the results obtained by this method, when compared to the results obtained by

non-linear time-history analysis, differ up to 50%, which proves this method unreliable.

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 17 Graphical presentation of solution for the triangular distribution of lateral load

The improved procedure (FEMA 2005) is also based on equivalent linearization, the equiv-

alent values being determined by coefficients in correlation to the hysteretic performance

and stiffness of the system after yielding. These coefficients are based on a large number

of analyzed non-linear systems with one degree of freedom and are optimized so that they

correspond to the empiric values.

New symbols are introduced: βe f f for the total viscous damping and β0 for the viscous

damping ratio of the system for vibrations in the linear field and Tsec for the equivalent period.

The target displacement is represented by intersection of the effective period and the

response spectrum in AD format for the equivalent damping ADRS(βe f f ): Procedure A

(direct iteration, Fig. 17). The same solution is provided by the intersection of the secant

period with the modified response spectrum MADRS (βe f f , M): Procedure B (intersection

with MADRS, Fig. 17). The reduction of the elastic spectrum with 5% viscous damping

on the spectrum with the equivalent damping βe f f is determined according to the following

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

expression which defines ADRS(βe f f ) (the acceleration values of the diagram are reduced

only):

Sa0

Saβ = (11)

B(βe f f )

Saβ is the elastic spectrum acceleration with viscous damping βe f f ,

Sa0 is the elastic spectrum acceleration with 5% viscous damping,

B (βe f f ) being the reduction factor which is: 4/(5, 6 − ln βe f f ).

The modified response spectrum MADRS (βe f f , M) is obtained by multiplying the ADRS

(βe f f ) values with the modification factor M (Fig. 17):

amax Te f f 2

M= = (12)

ae f f Tsec

Figure 17 presents the results for the triangular lateral load distribution. The target dis-

placement of the equivalent system with one degree of freedom is 19.3 cm and that of the

original system is 1.39 · 19.3 = 26.8 cm (Fig. 17, Table 5).

The discussed non-linear static methods differ in their application simplicity, transparency

and clarity of the theoretical basis. The basis of all methods is the same, i.e., the pushover

method, while the main difference is the determination of the pushover limit of the tar-

get displacement. Both approximations and limitations of the non-linear static methods are

connected to those two steps.

Table 1 offers a brief review of basic differences between the analyzed non-linear static

methods. The following particularities have been analyzed:

• the type of used spectrum;

• the idealization of pushover curve and the need for the iteration procedure;

• the consistency of transformation of a SDOF system into the original system with MDOF;

• the possibility of graphical presentation.

In the presented formulation of the N2 method, the simplified non-linear spectrum, which is

based on the equal displacement rule for structures with medium and long periods, is used.

Method Spectrum type Iteration requirement Transformation Graphical

consistency presentation

SDOF→MDOF

NSP Non-linear Yes No No

CSM Equiv. linear Yes No Yes

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

The applicability of this rule has been confirmed by numerous statistical studies and it pro-

vides the best results for firm soils and structures with stabile and full hysteresis loops. In the

N2 method, for its simplicity, the elastic-perfectly plastic relation between the force and the

displacement was proposed. A moderate value of post-yield stiffness (related to coefficient

α) has no significant influence on the demanded displacement and the proposed inelastic

spectrum is adequate for structure without strengthening or with little strengthening. The

bilinear idealization depends, to some extent, on engineering judgment. In codes, however,

the procedure should be clearly defined. The displacement demand depends on the equiva-

lent stiffness which depends on the target displacement. In Eurocode 8, for performing the

bilinear idealization based on the equal energy concept, the displacement corresponding to

the formation of the plastic mechanism can be assumed as the target displacement. In such a

case, there is no need for the iteration procedure. If the target displacement value is expected

to be considerably less than the displacement at the formation of the plastic mechanism

formation, an iteration procedure is, in principle, necessary. In the Annex B of EC8/1 an iter-

ative procedure is recommended for such a case (see B.5 of EC8/1). The iterative procedure

leads to a larger equivalent stiffness. To some extent, the idealization depends on engineering

judgment.

The inelastic spectrum used in this method is identical to the inelastic spectrum used in the N2

method. The idealization of the pushover curve is required. It depends on the target displace-

ment, which makes the procedure iterative. The pushover curve is idealized by a bilinear

relation in which the value of stiffness, after having reached the yielding point, generally

differs from zero. The positive value of stiffness after the yielding point (α > 0, Fig. 16) has

no influence on the target displacement. The effective stiffness is assumed to be identical to

the secant stiffness which is determined by the shear force at the value of 60% of the force

at the yielding limit.

The coefficient C0 , which connects the maximum displacement of the SDOF system and

the maximum roof displacement of the original structure, is defined in the same way as

transformation factor in the N2 method. However, the transformation of the SDOF system

into the original system is theoretically inconsistent due to the allowed partial or complete

independence of displacement and force forms. In this process the transparency and clarity

are lost, yet no significant influence on accuracy occurs.

The capacity spectrum method uses the equivalent linear spectrum which is determined by

the equivalent damping. The pseudo acceleration spectrum which determines the seismic

demand is practically the same as the spectrum of the total acceleration for lower values of

the damping. However, by increasing the damping, the difference between the pseudo accel-

eration and the total acceleration increases on the unsafe side. The error increases also with

an increase of the fundamental period. Having in mind the theoretical basis for the equivalent

linearization, the advantage of the inelastic spectra used in other two methods is obvious.

A bilinear idealization of the pushover curve is required. The value of the effective damp-

ing ratio depends on ductility and stiffness after yielding. In this method, the idealization also

depends on the target displacement so the iteration procedure is required. The transforma-

tion of the SDOF system into the original system is identical to the one in N2 method. The

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

graphical presentation is made in AD format. Both presented procedures for determining the

target displacement can be graphically presented.

7.5 Comparison

It can be concluded that the N2 method and the NSP coefficient method are basically very

similar and provide the same results if the starting assumptions are identical. In the NSP

coefficient method there are two additional coefficients which influence the value of the

target displacement and which are not included into the other two methods (N2 and CSM):

the coefficient C2 which represents the effects of stiffness and strength degradation for max-

imum structure displacements and the coefficient C3 which represents the displacement

increase due to the dynamic P- effect. The influence of coefficients C2 and C3 can easily

be included into two other methods (N2 and CSM) in a way that the target displacement is

multiplied by the corresponding modification factor. The N2 and NSP methods yield identical

results if C2 = 1 and C3 = 1 and if the same effective stiffness is used.

Neither of the analyzed methods takes into consideration the accumulation of the damage

which can be significant for long duration earthquakes. The inclusion of this effect into exist-

ing methods can be made by increasing the seismic demand or by introducing the equivalent

ductility factor like in the N2 method, which reduces the deformation capacity (Fajfar and

Gaspersic 1996).

The comparison of the results obtained for the structure from Fig. 1 was performed.

Tables 2 and 3 offer the comparative characteristic values of the used methods for the assumed

triangular and uniform displacement forms.

The non-linear static coefficient method is represented by two sets of results: in one case

the value of the coefficient C0 was taken from the corresponding tables (designation NSP)

while in the other case the accurate coefficient value C0 was used (designation NSP*).

Taking into consideration that the non-linear time history analysis is the most accu-

rate method, its results were used for evaluating other methods. The maximum target

K e (kN/m) 4629 5529 5838 4980

α 0 0.19 0.19 0.09

Te f or T ∗ (s) 1.68 1.68 1.64 1.85

δt or Dt (cm) 26.1 24.4 25.4 26.8

K e (kN/m) 5526 7351 7325 5800

α 0 0.23 0.24 0.15

Te f or T ∗ (s) 1.98 1.46 1.64 1.84

δt or Dt (cm) 22.1 19.5 16.3 25.0

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 18 Displacements and storey drifts obtained by non-linear dynamic and static methods

displacements in all methods are given in Table 4. It can be noted that the values are similar

and correspond to the mean value obtained by non-linear time-history analysis.

Taking into consideration that all the methods use the same pushover curve, there is not

much difference observed in displacements and storey drifts when using different non-lin-

ear static procedures, Fig. 18. It is obvious that the non-linear static methods provide very

good results in estimating the displacements in comparison to the results of the “accurate”

non-linear analysis (the differences are within 10%). Less accurate results are obtained in

estimating the story drifts, especially on higher storeys, Fig. 18, due to higher mode effects

which are not included in the simplified procedures.

It is also advisable to obtain the structure performance in extreme load, which is obtained

by increasing the target displacement. There is a recommendation in Eurocode 8/1 that “the

capacity curve should be determined by pushover analysis for values of the control displace-

ment ranging between zero and the value corresponding to 150% of the target displacement”.

In Table 5 the results of the analysis of the structure from Fig. 1 with control displace-

ment of 150% of the target displacement are presented for all non-linear static methods.

Maximum top displacement of the structure in Fig. 1 obtained by using a dynamic method

with real time-history records (Fig. 18) is 37.8 cm, which corresponds to 145% of the target

displacement obtained using the non-linear static N2 method, Fig. 9.

Increasing the target displacement obtained using the N2 method by a factor of 1.45

equals the maximum displacement of the top of building as if it were obtained by non-linear

time-history analysis.

Although it is recommended in EC8/1 to construct the capacity curve taking into account

150% of the target displacement it does not mean the capacity curve should be always ideal-

ized based on this value. In Annex B of EC8/1 the iterative procedure is recommended when

the supposed and evaluated maximum displacement are very different (see B.5 of EC8/1). For

each iterative procedure the elastic-plastic relationship from Fig. 9 will be slightly changed

and adopted to the new value of the target displacement according to relation (B.6), EC8/1.

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

N2

target displacement for different

non-linear static methods and Target displacement 26.1 cm

results of non-linear time-history 150% of target displacement 39.2 cm

analysis

NSP*

Target displacement 25.4 cm

150% of target displacement 38.1 cm

CSM

Target displacement 26.8 cm

150% of target displacement 40.2 cm

Time-history Real Artificial

Minimal value (δmin ) 19.7 cm 25.5 cm

Maximal value (δmax ) 37.8 cm 29.9 cm

The difference δmax − δmin 18.1 cm 4.4 cm

Mean value (δ AV ) 27.7 cm 28.0 cm

Standard deviation (σ ) 6.8 cm 0.6 cm

Mean value+1σ (δ AV + σ ) 34.5 cm 28.6 cm

In the analysis presented here the iterative procedure has not be carried out (the change of

the result of the iterative procedure is negligible).

By increasing the target displacement obtained using the N2 method by a factor of 1.32 the

mean value enlarged with the standard deviation obtained by non-linear time-history analysis

will be reached, (δ AV + σ ) = 34.5 cm, Table 5.

In Fig. 18 the results for displacement shapes and storey drifts obtained by non-linear

time-history analysis and non-linear static methods based on European and US provisions

are presented. The comparison of results obtained by different methods can be seen in Table 5.

Despite the stated insufficiencies non-linear static methods can be a valuable tool in esti-

mating the seismic structural performance for structures in which the influence of the higher

modes is not important.

8 Conclusions

It can be concluded that the discussed non-linear static methods differ in their application,

simplicity, transparency and clarity of theoretical basis, but the basis of all methods is the

same, i. e., the pushover method. The main difference among the presented methods is

the determination of the pushover limit of target displacement. Three different displacement

forms (uniform, triangular and modal) were applied and the differences of the obtained target

displacement have been presented.

According to the results of the analysis presented here, the N2 method and the NSP

coefficient method are essentially very similar and provide the same results if the starting

assumptions are identical. In the NSP coefficient method there are two additional coeffi-

cients which influence the value of the target displacement and which are not included in the

other two methods (N2 and CSM). Neither of the analyzed methods takes into consideration

the accumulation of the damage which can be significant for long duration earthquakes.

The inclusion of this effect into the existing methods can be made by increasing the seismic

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

demand or by introducing the equivalent ductility factor like in the N2 method, which reduces

the deformation capacity.

Bearing in mind that the non-linear time history analysis is the most accurate method, its

results were used for evaluating other methods. The maximum target displacements in all

methods are obtained. The values for non-linear static analysis are similar and correspond to

the mean value obtained by non-linear time-history analysis.

The structural performance at extreme load, which is obtained by increasing the target

displacement, has also been discussed. Maximum top displacement of the structure obtained

by using a dynamic method with real time-history records (envelope) corresponds to 145%

of the target displacement obtained using the non-linear static N2 method. It means that

increasing the target displacement obtained using the N2 method with a factor of 1.45 equals

the maximum (envelope) displacement of the top of building as if it were obtained by a non-

linear time-history analysis. By increasing the target displacement obtained using the N2

method with a factor of 1.30, the mean value enlarged with the standard deviation obtained

by non-linear time-history analysis is reached.

Acknowledgments The research in this paper was done within the research project “Development of struc-

tures with increased reliability with regard to earthquakes” supported by the Ministry of Science, Education

and Sports of the Republic of Croatia (grant no. 114-0821466-1470).

References

Applied Technology Council (ATC-40) (1996) Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Wash-

ington, DC

Causevic M, Zehentner E (2007) Non-linear seismic analysis of structures according to EN 1998-1:2004,

Gradevinar, Zagreb, No. 09

Chopra AK (2001) Dynamics of structures—theory and applications to earthquake engineering. 2nd edn.

Prentice Hall, New Jersey

Chopra AK, Goel RK (1999) Capacity-demand-diagram methods for estimating seismic deformation of inelas-

tic structures. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre

Chopra AK, Goel RK (2002) A modal pushover procedure to estimate seismic demands of buildings. Earthq

Eng Struct Dyn 31:561–582

Eurocode 8 (2004) Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and

rules for buildings, European standard EN 1998-1. European Committee for Standardization (CEN),

Brussels

Fajfar P (2000) A nonlinear analysis method for performance based seismic design. Earthq Spectra 16(3):573–

592

Fajfar P, Gaspersic P (1996) The N2 method for the seismic damage analysis of RC buildings. Earthq Eng

Struct Dyn 25:23–67

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2005) Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis

Procedures—FEMA-440. Washington, DC

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (1997) NEHRP guidelines for seismic rehabilitation of

buildings—FEMA 273; NEHRP Commentary on the guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of build-

ings—FEMA 274. Washington, DC

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2000) Pre standard and Commentary for the Seismic

Rehabilitation of Buildings—FEMA 356. Washington, DC

Gelfi P (2007) SIMQKE_GR, Programma per la generazione di accelerogrammi artificiali spettro-compatibili.

University of Brescia, Italy

Mitrovic S, Causevic M (2009) Non-linear static seismic analysis of structures, Gradevinar, Zagreb, No. 6

Naumoski N (1988) Representative ensembles of strong earthquake records, CAEE—The Canadian Associ-

ation for Earthquake Engineering, http://www.caee.uottawa.ca/

Naumoski N, Tso WK, Heidebrecht AC (1988) A selection of representative strong motion earthquake records

having different A/V ratios. Earthquake Engineering Research Group, McMaster University, Hamilton,

ON, EERG Report 88-01

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, http://nisee.berkeley.edu

Pinho R, SeismoSoft SeismoSignal (2007) A computer program for processing strong-motion data, URL:http://

www.seismosoft.com

Pinho R, SeismoSoft SeismoStruct (2007) A computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of

framed structures, URL:http://www.seismosoft.com

Rozman M, Fajfar P (2009) Seismic response of a RC frame building designed according to old and modern

practices. Bull Earthq Eng 7(3):779–799

123

- Vibration Chapter01 Intro1Uploaded byMada Kurniawan
- Seismic Analysis of Structures - IIIUploaded byTusharDatta
- Earthquake Resistant DesignUploaded byAnnie Hill
- SACS BrochureUploaded byjakeer7
- 3 Seismic Analysis of Multi-Degree of Freedom SystemsUploaded byScleptzy
- SEISMIC OF IRREGULAR BUILDINGUploaded byDiane Mahal KO
- Comparative Study of Seismic Response for Seismic Coefficient and RSMUploaded byJacky Tam
- ASME_Ch34_p611-628Uploaded byAris Badourakis
- The Influence of Soil Characteristics in Seismic Response of Embedded StructuresUploaded byRazvan
- Seismic performance of a 3D full-scale high-ductile steel–concrete part2Uploaded byZsolt Nagy
- Translated Version of MDOC CFE EARTHQUAKE 2008 [Sec 3]Uploaded byMayur Patel
- FEMA 440- SSI Provisions)Uploaded byaltarzakov
- Seismic analysis of a liquid storage tank used in wine industry: a FEM-based approachUploaded bylauro330
- Turnitin Result 4 ProjectUploaded byS Abbas Ahmed
- Seismic Survey in BangladeshUploaded bySiddique Ahmed
- CBS Manual Eng 2009Uploaded bymotomartin08
- 001_Vibration Serviceability of Long-Span ConcreteUploaded bythaibinhkx
- Soil structure interaction effects on seismic response of multistory buildings on Raft Foundation.pdfUploaded byBala Subramanian
- Mitigation on PoundingUploaded byNoman Khan
- ST057GhodratiUploaded byRoy Christian Coarita Tintaya
- Vibration LabUploaded byShufang Yu
- talasiUploaded bypavlovicrs
- seismicperformanceofcircularelevatedwatertankUploaded bygnanasekar007
- Intro and LiteratureUploaded bySiddharthJoshi
- 3Uploaded bySoubhagya Kumar Sahoo
- MEMB343 Course Outline.pdfUploaded byMohd Harriz
- uniud_benasciuttiUploaded byMicheleDiSclafani
- Nov_Dec_2013(1).pdfUploaded byumesh
- Vibration BasicsUploaded byRadha R
- filetodownload,133389,enUploaded byMradul Yadav

- CP302 Example 01 OKUploaded byAw Yeong Pei Yee
- A Course in Fluid Mechanics With Vector Field Theory - D. PrieveUploaded byDS_Systems
- Aerodynamics of Ballistic Missiles.pdfUploaded byHugo
- Process Modelling Selection of Thermodynamics MethodsUploaded byvictorvikram
- Trajectory PlanningUploaded bySrinathKonanurBharadwaj
- Unit 3(Steam Nozzles)Uploaded byamarparimi
- Millikan Oil DropUploaded byYohana Glorya Tobing
- Nuclear EnergeticsUploaded byJoy Ochoa
- Superconductor Sensors for Biomedical ApplicationsUploaded byVictor Mb U
- Surface TensionUploaded byAditya Bansal
- triposguideUploaded byKaustubh Kendurkar
- WavesUploaded byGRACIA BUJAY
- Simulating Flow Over Circular Spillways by Using Different Turbulence Models-libreUploaded bysenthilkumar99
- biblioUploaded bydommunoz01
- Steam Turbine Electricity Generation PlantsUploaded byMohan Raj
- Yang-Mills theory on the Light ConeUploaded bys4suchi
- VMUK HS02 031 en VEM Synchronous Generators CatalogueUploaded byAissaDjekidel
- Manual Tektronix 6015AUploaded bylzamaro
- Labsheet-SKKC-2721-20162017_02Uploaded byHoong
- Smoke-Wire Flow Visualization of a Synthetic JetUploaded byzippy2009
- EN1995_4_Kreuzinger.pdfUploaded byTarek Abulail
- sw8 chp06Uploaded byapi-115560904
- MmmUploaded byfarhan
- NASA Bellmouth CalibrationUploaded byInvasoresNL
- 11 17 2014 Differential CalculusUploaded byEj Apelo
- 213265168-Duct-Stiffener-Design.xlsUploaded byXplore Engg
- exp 7 yky printUploaded byKelvinYong
- Rajca Spin Coupling to MagnetismUploaded byebooks001
- Be Syllbus Ptdc DavvUploaded byNarendra
- EE3741 L3 Transmission LineUploaded bydebeal